Slashdot Mirror
Clash of the Open Standards
Rollie Hawk writes "Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Computer Associates (CA) may agree that some housework is needed with open source licensing, but they may not be able to reconcile their views on the best solution.
CA has a couple of possible solutions in mind for its proposed Template License. This license will likely be based on either Sun's Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) its own Trusted Open Source License.
OSI, which does not favor corporate-centered licensing, opposes such moves on a number of grounds. Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible. While acknowledging the problems with license proliferation, OSI prefers a solution involving stricter criteria (including that approved licenses must me non-duplicative, clear and understandable, and reusable) and is proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated."
While there is no legal requirement for any open-source license to be approved by OSI, it is currently common practice for developers to get their license blessing from it."
Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible.
Umm... so? Since when was the GPL the pinnacle of open source licensing anyway? Licenses pushing a corporate agenda aren't really any worse than the GPL which pushes a political agenda.
proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated.
With all the nuanced licenses appearing, this is good to see. Then again for my needs all I want to know is GPL-compatible or not.
But the question really is, how much do people care about this? There seem to be a couple of licences most open source softwares use, being the GPL and the BSD licences, and only odd examples use others. Yes, the big big things like apache and the like have their own licenece, but for most people writting a small application, as well as a lot of larger projects, those two seem to cover it.
Free licence are free, and if they aren't, they shouldn't be portrayed as such.
We're not going into that debate again, I hope? the same thing with "which is more free: BSD or GPL".
There is NO difficulty here: BSD, by nature, is more free, yes. But to *keep* it free, GPL is better suited.
And such is the case with all 'open' licenses: some may be more free, others may suit some particular need better.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
When one looks closely at these licensing issues, one discovers that it ia always about the money and control. I will admit bias here. I read all the links with the bent mind toward the belief that it's always about the money.
1. In your mailbox, you discover a subpoena.
2. ????
3. (Profit)!!!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It's open, but that doesn't mean that anyone can do what they want with it. That amounts to licentiousness, and not freedom.
Licensing open-source software ensures that the developers work is not abused or ripped off by companies seeking a quick profit. Any code written under an open-source license is to remain free forever, at least theoretically.
And before Slashdotters start asking why it's ok for developers to license code and not for the RIAA to license music, remember that the former means profit for the violator, while the latter doesn't.
...is there are so many to chose from!
Not to ask a stupid question (I know there are no stupid questions, just stupid questioners), but:
Exactly how many open source licenses are there? When I first started looking at open source, I only knew of GPL. Then I learned of BSD. Up till now, I was under the impression that those two were the only open source licenses.
Free MacMini
Why is CA involved in this in the first place?
Their #1 revenue model is to buy a software product from someone else, cut development and rake in maintenance checks. Are they branching out?
Licenses are important but different developers see licenses differently. I think it is rational to offer a license of choice by the author of the software. I wouldn't want a standards committee telling me what my license should be and I wouldn't want a RIAA/MPAA-type organization either. While I'm at it, why make a license compatible with another? If I want my license to be compatible with GPL, why not just use the GPL? The BSD vs. GPL is a matter of what freedoms one wants in their license. As long as there is a license to protect the author, it should be fine.
except that allofmp3.com does NOT violate any law and has properly took a license from the proper russian administraton.
#include "coucou.h"
Would it be feasible to define some standard groups of clauses for topics so you could just plug them together as components to get an actual license? Then you could just pick one out of several options for copying restrictions. Or if that's not possible, at least try to standardise it in some way. It'd make licenses a lot easier to read.
:)
But of course, IANAL, so there's probably a very good reason why this hasn't been done. Or maybe it has and I'm just ignorant
Take life easy: one bit at a time.
There are too many "The Only Right Ways To Go". Some of them are wrong. And some aren't even ways to go!
No we do not need *one* license.
BTW, if GPL ceased to exist somehow, the CDDL vs BSD flamewars will spread. Some people tend to like flamewars...
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
For example, a TLA should be registered and if there are two TLA that are the same, then they should have a .x after them, where x is a number.
For example
OSI stands for Open Systems Interconnect, and OSI.1 stands for Open Source Inititive
PSP stands for "Paint Shop Pro" and PSP.1 stands for Play Station Portable.
Okay, it defeats the purpose of TLAs by making them FLA.2* (Five letter abbrieviations) but hey it's all too confusing!
* FLA stands for Finance and Leasing Association, and FLA.1 is Fair Labor Association.
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
I, for one, think that political agendas that aim to benefit people at large (and have a track record of success at doing so) are less immoral than corporate agendas that seek to enrich their investors at the expense of unwitting customers.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Lawyers around the world are gearing up to make millions of dollars/euros/yen/... litigating the nuances of the conflicting "Open Source" licensing models.
Open source is an extremely revolutionary idea and fairly unique in the history of the world and I would be concerned at how a major corporation would interpret and alter the concept.
Another example of corporate involvement in revolutionary ideas is Slashdot itself. Every time I view a forum discussion a message from friendly Microsoft pops up telling me not to switch my operating system from Windows to Linux. This message also prevents me from reading replies and thus altering my pleasurable Slashdot experience.
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
"Any code written under an open-source license is to remain free forever, at least theoretically."
This is just open/free source propaganda. Any code that is placed in the public domain or under a BSD-style license will "remain free forever" without a GPL style license. In other words, no corporation can make it illegal for you to use it or extend it.
A license like the GPL makes it impossible to "lock up" derivative works that are distributed, but that has nothing to do with the "freedom" of the original code.
Actually - I'd argue that GPL gives more freedom to the original developer. That is the freedom to use all derived works.
The original BSD developer for the TCP stack has no access to the MS implementation of that stack - since they slapped a proprietary license on it.
On the other hand, the original GLP developer of linux code has full access to the Linksys implementation of it - since Linksys is compelled to release updates.
You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects (since they can just steal code from them), they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD, and that limits your ability to profit even more than the GPL, and arms your competitors with your technology. Companies only release under BSD if they don't care about the code at all, or if it is a reference implementation of something that they actually want everybody to just use as widely as possible - probably because it interfaces with some expensive proprietary product.
BSD does let you do more with the code, but GPL does more to protect the open source community, and to protect the original developer - and that is the person whose blood, seat, and tears were invested in the first place...
When a scientist makes a discovery and doesn't patent it (you know, the good ol' days), that discovery may be used by all of society in any manner what so ever. Is it immoral for a company to use that discovery? Not only is not immoral, by refusing to use the technology they would be depriving their customers of the benefits.
To declare that it's immoral to make use of the work of others to make a profit is to declare that all profits are immoral. That's not a political system I buy into it.
And your use of the word "quick" is silly and pejorative. While companies won't pass up quick profits, in real life they are far more focused on sustainable profits. Or they are if they want to be around for any length of time.
But the BSD might give the original developer the freedom to use more derived works, because more may exist. Heck, the original developer has the freedom to use all derived works if they just keep their source closed. Protecting the rights of the original developer seems like an odd standard to judge free/open source licenses on. We call them free/open because the original developer gives up some of their rights.
"You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects"
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for a company. Please don't hate me.
"(since they can just steal code from them)"
It's not stealing. The copyright owners have specifically authorised us to use the code. Presumably they even want us to.
"they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD"
We don't release all our works under the BSD, and certainly not those central to our competitive advantage, but we don't use others BSD code for that either, or there wouldn't be any advantage. However, when we use BSD code, we most certainly do release enhancements and bug fixes to that code under the BSD. Contrary to your imaginings, we release code under the BSD when we want others to be able to use and add to and our work.
The GPL only does more to protect the original developer, if the original developers wishes are what the GPL stipulates. I'm not sure the open source community needs protection; The BSD allows more people to be part of the open source community.
Saying one license is better then another is silly; they have different goals. People judge licenses by all sorts of different criteria, and judge "freedom" in all sorts of ways. Some of which seem pretty convoluted to me. Personally, I judge licenses by one yes or no question: "Can I do whatever the hell I want with the code?"
I like whatever-the-hell-you-want compatible licenses. You're free to like whatever licence you like. But arguing that any license is "more free" than a whatever-the-hell-you-want licence is going to require some pretty twisted logic.
I meant "most commonly used FOSS license, in number of FOSS packages choosing it". After thinking about it, I think probably The Artistic License actually has more users, since Perl is almost ubiquitous. Sendmail's BSD-like license is another contender.
... hmm, interesting. Here is a cached page listing some numbers:
I think I'll ask Google
http://www.google.com/help/features.html#cached
GPL/LGPL ~77%,
BSD et al 12%.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
On the contrary, in the GPL sense, I see open source as capitalistic.
You code an application and release it under GPL. A corporation finds the code useful, but wants a certain feature.
At that point they either pay you (the original developer) money to implement the feature, or implement it themselves and pay you with new code and an enhanced application.
Either way, you profit.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Just copyright your code. No license at all. That's exactly what you are asking for.
Actually you did mention "allow forking if I discontinue the software". You might be able to write up a small license that says somebody can violate the copyright if you stop supporting the software, though exactly how to word that is questionable.
The GPL does not force you to do anything. By their explanation Ford motor company is "communist" because to use their cars you are "forced" to give them money.
I can't talk about "good" licenses or "bad" licenses in the abstract without some concrete definition of "good" and "bad". I can think of lots of arguments that go both ways. I prefer the GPL.
Now if you propose some specific goal, then we can talk about whether licenses are "good" or "bad" for achieving that goal. Or, omitting relative virtues, we can discuss the social effects (PLURAL!!) of each particular license.
But I can't rate most licenses in the abstract as "good" or "bad". (I can think of a few exceptions...but they are always made so difficult to read that it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion about them.)
I prefer the GPL. It's pretty good at achieving the goals I want for my software, and I'm quite comfortable with the limitations that it places on my actions. And it's quite reasonable for other people to have other preferences. Actually, if the situation were assymetrical, then I might prefer to chose to recieve code under the BSD license, and offer it under my own, but I would consider it unreasonable to expect people to go along with that. And I'm comfortable with the GPL in a symmetrical context.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
From the Debian Free Software Guidelines, as well as the Open Source Definition:
Your license does not permit specific kinds of modified works from being distributed under the same terms.
I can understand the issue you are trying to solve: you don't want translations that don't come from the original, most likely because that would result in compounding errors due to mistranslation or limited translation. However, this is just one possible way that someone could make your program worse; they could also introduce bugs, security issues, standards-violations/extensions, or just features you don't like. Attempting to prevent people from making the program worse will also prevent people from exercising the right to create derivative works.
A much better solution is to require that modified works are clearly labelled as modified, and not represented as the original. Licenses such as the GPL and the zlib license do exactly that. This way, people can still modify the program for any purpose, but they won't make you look bad in the process, only themselves.
Another minor issue with your license is the fact that you require people to provide an offer for source code that is valid in perpetuity, without providing the alternative of just providing source code at the same time as providing the binary. This means that if someone ever provided a version of your program on their website, they would have to keep a copy of the source for that version indefinitely. This gets even worse if they distributed several versions.
These are just a few symptoms of what happens when you attempt to write your own license rather than using a well-established Free Software / Open Source license.
IANAL, but the problem with this is that once you say something is "Public Domain" you no longer have any say whatsoever in it. Those conditions would not need to be followed by anyone at all. Public Domain is Public Domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose without consulting you nor following any of your instructions on its use. I believe that includes the disclaimer.